Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was merely trying to prove my point that Cincinnati is a historically conservative city. Again, the map below supports this. And, you're right that it's outrageous whether she's Democrat, Republican or Anarchist. However, the fact is that more racist (or at least vocally racist) people are republicans than democrats, probably a result of the fact that more people in rural areas are democratic than republican. No, it's not right to stereotype people. Just because someone is republican doesn't mean they're racist, just like just because someone's black doesn't mean they commit crimes, but both types of people are overrepresented in those respective areas.
Fair enough, mostly a fair post. Even though you say that it's "not right to stereotype," then you go ahead and do it. And I think you're dead wrong that "more people in rural areas are democratic." Remember the Bush-Gore 2000 red-blue map.
I just want to say, who gives a crap? Why is it that people get their feelings hurt so easily anyway? There are a million ways to discriminate, colleges discriminate all the time in admissions. We discriminate when it comes to political candidates. We discriminate when we hire people, making assumptions based on certain characteristics that we believe to be important. We discriminate when it comes to relationships and partners. Everyone discriminates all the time. So is discrimination bad? Some would want you to believe so.
It is impossible to tell whether or not someone will be a good employee because they have a college degree, compared to the guy who dropped out of high school. But that kind of discrimination is acceptable and legal. So what? No one gives a ****. But if you discriminate based on race, regardless of your reasons, you are branded as ignorant? Why? Because it is a stereotype that is only true some of the time? Get over yourselves.
I'm not a fan of discrimination by any means. I railed against "age discrimination" quite a bit in my youth. But, I'm not a fan of trying to get sympathy from people to allow you to use the government to pass laws, to prevent you or others from having their feelings hurt. It is ridiculous.
And while there are certain types of "illegal discrimination". There are plenty of types of discrimination that are not only legal, but sanctioned by the government. Like the SAT, which supposedly attempts to gauge your innate intelligence. Basically, the SAT is supposed to test for a persons IQ. Which tends to discriminate heavily against most minorities(minus Asians of course).
But of course, there is affirmative-action which lowers the bar for minorities to increase their admission rates over whites(and sometimes Asians). Which is in essence "reverse discrimination". But no one gives a **** because it is "politically correct". But it is all bull****. And is just legal and government sanctioned discrimination. But no one cares really, so it persists.
Last edited by gallowsCalibrator; 12-14-2011 at 10:13 AM..
Reason: Removed personal attacks
I blame Rush for playing "Barack the Magic Negro." Every sleazy racist felt empowered to crawl from underneath their rocks and be Bull Conner wannabes
with impunity. These people think the Bill of Rights itself is too liberal, and they're too "conservative" to find the Magna Carta acceptable. It's a sad day when common decency is redefined as "political correctness." I hope the court gives this sorry excuse of a woman the kind of Christmas present she deserves.
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: There's a fascinating story in the LA Times today. Get this headline. Who wrote this? David Ehrenstein is his name. He's LA-based, and "writes about Hollywood and politics." The headline of his column: "Obama, the 'Magic Negro.'"
kid you not! "As every carbon-based life form on this planet surely knows, Barack Obama, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, is running for president. Since making his announcement, there has been no end of commentary about him in all quarters -- musing over his charisma and the prospect he offers of being the first African American to be elected to the White House. But it's clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination -- the 'Magic Negro.' The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. 'He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist,' reads the description on Wikipedia. … He's there to assuage white 'guilt' (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress
So rush did not start the phrase, what he did was explain what the phrase meant. The phrase was used by a left wing LA op ed. I do not see you attacking the OP ED
According to the article, the landlord declared the swimming pool to be public use, in addition to being white-only. I believe this is where the problem lies.
But its not actually public use, if its on private property and there is a sign restricting access to African Americans.
I find what this landlord has done to be terrible. I think that everyone should be treated equally, regardless of race. But in a free country, we've got to allow racisim to exist, but that doesn't mean we can't fight it with our consumer dollars.
The landlords excuse is bogus, they are racist, plain and simple. But the government shouldn't legislate morallity in a free country. Forced morallity doesn't help anyone.
But its not actually public use, if its on private property and there is a sign restricting access to African Americans.
I find what this landlord has done to be terrible. I think that everyone should be treated equally, regardless of race. But in a free country, we've got to allow racisim to exist, but that doesn't mean we can't fight it with our consumer dollars.
The landlords excuse is bogus, they are racist, plain and simple. But the government shouldn't legislate morallity in a free country. Forced morallity doesn't help anyone.
Tell that to Republicans. They are the ones trying to legislate people's personal lives with their fight to make abortion and gay marriage illegal.
Tell that to Republicans. They are the ones trying to legislate people's personal lives with their fight to make abortion and gay marriage illegal.
You are absolutely right, they should allow gay marriage and adoption.
But two wrongs don't make a right.
The government should have never forced private business owners to serve anyone. Public buildings and land, the federal government has the right to force them to serve every legal citizen, but private business owners, as those who own apartments, shouldn't be forced to serve someone they don't want there. If a business owner doesn't want to hire me because I'm white, I'm ok with that, its their business. If I walk into a grocery store thats owned by asians, and they don't want me in there, they should have that right. I have the right to take my money elsewhere.
So you think someone putting up a "whites only" sign at a public swimming pool is equivalent to an employer not hiring someone because they don't have the necessary qualification for the job? Your rambling post sounds like someone who is not completely there. Get help. It seems like you are dealing with a lot of subconscious issues. There are psychologists out there who work for free.
You are missing my point. Just because someone has a college degree doesn't necessarily make them anymore qualified than someone who learned the skill on their own(and saved a crapload of money), but doesn't have the certification/paperwork to prove that they have the skills.
I know plenty of people who have gone to college for bullcrap degrees, who get jobs in fields totally opposite of what their degree should enable them to find work in. I have a friend who has a masters degree in "Latin-American history", but works basically as an accountant. He got the job, not because he had "skills that he learned in college". But rather that he was perceived to have the potential to learn since he had a masters degree.
My mother used to complain because she never finished her degree, and where she worked would only hire people with degrees for management positions. And they didn't even care what kind of degree it was. It could be a degree in cosmetics and that was fine. On the premise that someone with a degree would be more capable to learn and be more dedicated/harder working than someone without. It was a discriminatory assumption, not based on any tangible skills learned from the degree itself.
My point isn't to justify discrimination, my point is that people discriminate in all aspects of life. Discrimination is based on assumptions about someone because of certain attributes about them.
While we cringe on the idea that someone would assume poorly of someone who is black, or jewish, or a woman. We are perfectly fine with someone making assumptions based on low SAT scores or bad appearance/way of dress(don't wear a t-shirt to an interview). We are also largely fine with age discrimination, both against the young(they must be immature and unreliable), or the old(they probably can't do the work, and will retire soon). We make assumptions based on someones weight(they don't take care of themselves), we make assumptions based on previous work history, regardless of if it pertains to the current job or not.
My point is, discrimination is not only very common. Discrimination is good. We only dislike certain types of discrimination, which have gone out of favor because of political correctness.
My sister was a delivery driver for a while. She says poor people tip far better than wealthier people. And white people tip better than black people. She would intentionally attempt to take only the "deliveries" in which she would get the people who tipped the best, and leave the crappy tippers for other drivers. Was she discriminating? Or was she just smart?
In continuation. My argument isn't for discrimination, but rather against people attempting to pass laws to attempt to end certain types of discrimination that they don't like, not because it doesn't serve any real purpose. But rather, they don't want to hurt peoples feelings.
I simply don't like the government trying to dictate what kinds of discrimination is acceptable or unacceptable. And furthermore, dictating what types of discrimination is not only acceptable, but desirable.
I don't get my feelings hurt easily. Put up a blacks only sign, females only sign, etc etc. See how much I give a ****.
On the other hand, I get tired of bull**** charges/lawsuits being brought against private individuals for the sake of "social-engineering" because of whinebags.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"As every carbon-based life form on this planet surely knows, Barack Obama, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, is running for president. Since making his announcement, there has been no end of commentary about him in all quarters -- musing over his charisma and the prospect he offers of being the first African American to be elected to the White House. But it's clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination -- the 'Magic Negro.' The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. 'He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist,' reads the description on Wikipedia. … He's there to assuage white 'guilt' (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress 
